Supreme Court Hears Haiti and Syria TPS Case Today and Conservative Justices Signal They Will Side With the Administration

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, the consolidated challenges that will decide whether the Trump administration can strip Temporary Protected Status from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals working in the United States. The questioning ran longer than scheduled and centered on a threshold issue rather than the merits. Most of the conservative majority appeared willing to accept the government's position that a TPS termination decision by Homeland Security is not reviewable in federal court. If that view holds, the practical effect would extend far beyond the two countries named in the case.

About 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians are directly affected. The wider class watching is much larger. More than 1.3 million people from 17 countries live and work in the United States under TPS, and the framework the Court adopts here will apply to every one of those designations going forward. That includes nationals from Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Sudan, Ukraine, Burma, Yemen, Cameroon, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Each is on its own renewal cycle but subject to the same legal authority argued today.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the government's position. His central claim was that decisions by Secretary Kristi Noem to extend, terminate, or modify a TPS designation are committed to agency discretion and therefore fall outside the scope of judicial review. He pointed to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the secretary broad authority to assess country conditions and make a humanitarian judgment about whether a designation should continue. Several conservative justices were receptive and pressed the challengers on what limiting principle would prevent every termination from getting tied up in court. Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Alito both signaled sympathy for the government's reviewability theory.

The challengers were represented by two attorneys. Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA School of Law professor, argued the Syrian case. Geoffrey Pipoly argued for Haitian nationals. Their core argument is that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by terminating the designations without considering current country conditions, and that courts have routinely reviewed similar agency decisions for decades. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson asked the most pointed questions and pushed back on the idea that an entire category of agency action could be insulated from any judicial check.

What the Court does next matters for several timelines already in motion. DHS has issued termination notices for both Haiti and Syria, and lower court orders have been pausing those terminations during the litigation. If the Supreme Court reverses, the termination notices would take effect on the schedule the administration has set, and TPS holders would face a deadline to find another lawful status or leave the country. If the Court rules the other way, the cases would go back to the lower courts on the merits.

The case also lands at a politically charged moment for Haitian communities. Springfield, Ohio, North Miami, Florida, Brockton, Massachusetts, and other cities have built local economies that depend in part on Haitian workers under TPS. School districts have prepared for mid-year withdrawals if a termination takes effect during the academic year. Health systems and employers in Springfield and surrounding counties are mapping out workforce contingencies because of the uncertainty around the case.

The administration has framed the terminations as a return to the program's original temporary nature. The challengers point to country conditions in Haiti, including gang violence in Port-au-Prince, the collapse of public services, and a humanitarian situation the UN continues to describe as severe. The Syria record follows a similar pattern, with active hostilities and large displaced populations still inside the country. The Court did not engage with country conditions today and focused on whether a court can review the secretary's decision at all.

A decision is expected by late June or early July. Until then, the lower court orders remain in effect and TPS holders retain their work authorization and protection from removal. Advocacy groups and legal aid organizations have begun outreach to make sure people know the case is still pending and that no final decision has been issued. Local officials in cities with large Haitian populations have asked residents to wait for the ruling before making major decisions about employment, housing, or schooling.

The vote count to watch when the opinion drops is whether Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett join the four most conservative justices on reviewability. Court watchers flagged Roberts as the most active conservative voice and noted that he asked questions on both sides. A 6-3 ruling on reviewability would set a sweeping precedent. A narrower opinion on the specific terminations would leave the door open for future challenges. Either outcome will be the most consequential immigration ruling of this term.